The European Union is known for its consumer protections for airline passengers, thanks to its EC261 scheme. The reality is that while rules are written a certain way, their enforcement is often determined through court decisions (like alcohol not being considered a “refreshment” for the purposes of reimbursement from airlines during a delay). So here’s another fun court case, which ended up working out well for a traveler…
In this post:
Traveler takes taxi for 425-mile journey after flight cancels
German website PNP reports on a fascinating court decision about EC261 compensation (thanks to Klaus for flagging this). The origin of this dates back to late 2024, when a 32-year-old living in Munich was scheduled to fly on KLM from Munich (MUC) to Amsterdam (AMS) to Paris (CDG).
The backstory here is fun. His plan was to spend one night in Paris, and then to fly the following morning on a separately booked ticket on Air Europa from Paris to Madrid (MAD). He was taking these flights on SkyTeam airlines because he was participating the SAS EuroBonus million mile challenge.
Unfortunately his travel plans quickly fell apart. First his flight to Amsterdam was canceled, so he was rebooked to Paris via Berlin (BER), but then that was canceled as well. Then he was rebooked via Vienna (VIE), but the second flight ended up being canceled. So it became increasingly unlikely that he’d be able to make it to Paris in time for his flight the next day.
He researched options, but they were limited. There were no more flights to Munich, and trains and buses weren’t options either, because it was too late in the day. So as he saw it, the only option was to drive. He tried to find the most economical option by reaching out to multiple car services, but ultimately the cheapest cost he could find was a staggering €3,300 (around $3,900), via a taxi.
So he ended up in the back of a car for around nine hours overnight, only to make it to Paris just 90 minutes before the Air Europa flight to Madrid. So that doesn’t sound like a very restful night!
This situation resulted in a drawn out reimbursement travel
After the trip, the traveler reached out to Air France (that’s what the story claims — perhaps it’s referring to Air France-KLM more broadly, since KLM flies between Munich and Amsterdam). He requested the €250 cash compensation that’s due with EC261 when you arrive at your destination hours late, and he also requested reimbursement for the cost of the taxi ride. The airline denied both claims.
So his response was to take the airline to court. He argues he did nothing wrong, he left a buffer, and ultimately he pursued the only option that would get him to his destination in time.
EC261 requires airlines to rebook you on the next available flight, or reimburse you for alternative transportation. This is where courts ultimately decide what’s considered reasonable, since it’s not spelled out in regulations otherwise.
A lower court initially ruled that the airline wasn’t responsible for reimbursing the traveler for these costs, while a higher court did not share the lower court’s view, and sided with the traveler. It’s worth noting that this traveler used attorney Dr. Böse, who is known for litigating EC261 cases.
As Böse explained, “the airline did not offer a suitable alternative in terms of timing,” and “especially with such high potential losses, that’s simply unacceptable.” He also said that “given the high costs of replacement transportation, this is, in a sense, a precedent,” and “this is therefore a good and important decision for all consumers.”
While the airline reportedly tried to appeal the decision, months later, the traveler finally received what he was expecting, and the airline also had to cover the legal and court costs.
I’m not sure I have a terribly strong take here, other than finding this to be fascinating:
- On the one hand, this guy didn’t do anything wrong, he just wanted to get to his destination within a reasonable timeframe, and I can’t imagine an overnight taxi ride was enjoyable; it does seem like he tried to look at all other options, and this was one of the only ways for him to get there (it’s interesting rental cars are never mentioned)
- On the other hand, this is obviously an absurdly expensive way to get somewhere, and one wonders what the limits would be here; if your transatlantic flight cancels and there are no other options, should you be able to charter a private jet and have that reimbursed?
Ultimately this is what happens when you have an open-ended policy with no stated limits, and it’s up to courts to decide what’s a reasonable method to get to a destination with as little delay as possible. Does the fact that he had non-refundable tickets booked for the next day then justify the urgency, even at such a high cost?
Bottom line
EC261 regulations provide great passenger protections in the European Union. There are often court cases that explore the limits of this scheme, and we recently saw what I think is one of the most interesting such cases in a long time.
A traveler had a flight from Munich to Paris canceled, and he needed to be there by the next morning to catch another flight. With no alternatives, he spent around $3,900 on an overnight taxi ride, which I can’t imagine was pleasant.
He requested reimbursement from the airline, but was initially denied. After going through a legal process and a lower court ruling being overturned, the airline was ultimately forced to reimburse him for the expenses, as well as for court costs and legal fees.
What do you make of this court case?
rental cars? EU is not the USA. You won't rent a car in Germany to drop it off in Paris.
WE were dumped in the wrong city because of weather and told you get nothing from us...The elite passengers were put into limos and transported to their destination. They would not even give us our checked bag as the union at that airport could not remove it from the plane?? SO it flew back to Paris and we got it back days later as they flew it to the corrct destination. .We rented the only...
WE were dumped in the wrong city because of weather and told you get nothing from us...The elite passengers were put into limos and transported to their destination. They would not even give us our checked bag as the union at that airport could not remove it from the plane?? SO it flew back to Paris and we got it back days later as they flew it to the corrct destination. .We rented the only car left that night- a tiny?fiat and drove in the pouring rain to our correct city..
This is not as rare as you think. Two years ago I was booked on the German railway from Luxembourg to Denmark (to a city a couple of hours from Copenhagen). When I arrived in Hamburg, it turns out all trains were canceled that were headed north to Denmark. The lines were long and passengers were obviously upset. The railway started grouping us together per our destinations and put us in taxis. I remember when...
This is not as rare as you think. Two years ago I was booked on the German railway from Luxembourg to Denmark (to a city a couple of hours from Copenhagen). When I arrived in Hamburg, it turns out all trains were canceled that were headed north to Denmark. The lines were long and passengers were obviously upset. The railway started grouping us together per our destinations and put us in taxis. I remember when I arrived the meter was almost 500 euros. There were four of us in the taxi and one passenger continued further.
Any sane person would of booked Munich to Paris direct flight. People who book these stupid connections and waste fossil fuels for some mile challenge should waive their right to sue.
A one-way rental with Sixt, pick up now at MUC, drop off tomorrow at CDG, can be had for < 1,000 €
You can't just drop off a rental car in a different country
Depends on the rental car company and countries involved, maybe? I wouldn’t find it that uncommon for people to rent cars in Amsterdam and return them in Brussels, for example. I rented a car in Montreal (indeed at the airport) a few years back and returned it at JFK the next day after my Amtrak train was canceled. Amtrak had set up buses but I opted to cancel for a refund and I really enjoyed...
Depends on the rental car company and countries involved, maybe? I wouldn’t find it that uncommon for people to rent cars in Amsterdam and return them in Brussels, for example. I rented a car in Montreal (indeed at the airport) a few years back and returned it at JFK the next day after my Amtrak train was canceled. Amtrak had set up buses but I opted to cancel for a refund and I really enjoyed the drive through upstate NY. I think the whole thing maybe cost ~$120. The Enterprise car agent at Montreal said people do this all the time there.
In many cases you can, for a high surcharge.
What were the court and legal costs?
low to medium four figure amount, but AF has to cover that.
I bet Dr. Bose makes more money than senior equity partner at Paul Weiss. He doesn’t have to worry about United having tiered business class pricing!
Bose? Like the speakers? I think you meant Boese. Show some respect. That guy fights for you and me, passenger rights and protections. C’mon, Will… cheap shots…
So this was a German court with a good native German consumer and nasty foreigner as a defendant?
No surprise that the German judge ruled in favour of the German party.
Largely the same judiciary that was in place during the NSDAP period continued in the Bundesrepublik. While people age and retire, the culture continues.
Every year the EU publishes an annual survey on racism and Germany consistently "wins" first place.
So, you hate consumers so much, you’re willing to claim an entire country is simply racist as the reason your beloved corporation(s) should not have to pay their fair share when they screw us? Odd.
Don't worry, I do also win (most) cases against Lufthansa ;-)
The value at stake because of the SAS million points challenge we were doing at the time was high enough to make it reasonable to pay a couple thousand dollars to not lose the million points promo + related expenses from booked tickets’ value.
Bah! Did you actually pull off that promo?!
That bit of context is pretty weird as it looks like the guy actually lives in/near Munich, from where flying AF and UX is super easy so he could've made up for the disruption upon coming back to Europe.
He must've had some crazy downroute connections (I'm guessing TAROM?) without much margin for error.
> if your transatlantic flight cancels and there are no other options, should you be able to charter a private jet and have that reimbursed?
Yes, that's the case. Dr. Böse already made an airline pay for a charter flight after a denied boarding.
The absurdity of this ruling shows a dire need for a revision of the regulations. When a law allows courts to come to absurd it needs to be reviewed and revised.
There is a stipulation for rebooking under comparable conditions, how a court comes to the conclusion that a 900km taxi ride is comparable conditions? What's next, chartering a private jet?
There are many positive sides to the regulations, and I am generally in favour...
The absurdity of this ruling shows a dire need for a revision of the regulations. When a law allows courts to come to absurd it needs to be reviewed and revised.
There is a stipulation for rebooking under comparable conditions, how a court comes to the conclusion that a 900km taxi ride is comparable conditions? What's next, chartering a private jet?
There are many positive sides to the regulations, and I am generally in favour of them. But it has gone too far.
But I guess I now know the EC261 slang equivalent to an ambulance chaser.....
This a similar outcome could even have happened without 261/2004/EC due to a breach of contract.
Highly doubtful. But please do continue to strongly encourage the Parliament to revise the legislation.
Granted, this is an extreme interpretation but at the same time, the current regulation also allows airlines to dodge legitimate claims very easily. For every 3000€ claim like this, there's hundreds of unpaid 300€ claims, so ultimately airlines have it good with the current regulation. If 261/2004 ever gets opened (which I think it should), airlines risk it becoming much easier to enforce because of course that will be pointed out as the main issue...
Granted, this is an extreme interpretation but at the same time, the current regulation also allows airlines to dodge legitimate claims very easily. For every 3000€ claim like this, there's hundreds of unpaid 300€ claims, so ultimately airlines have it good with the current regulation. If 261/2004 ever gets opened (which I think it should), airlines risk it becoming much easier to enforce because of course that will be pointed out as the main issue with the current regulation.
There is a two way street, there are instances where airlines try to get away from clear cut cases, and there instances where lawyers try to see how far they can push cases. The latter not for right or wrong, but because it pays for their Mercedes.
So yes, there is a need to revise and reduce the frivolous shenanigans on both side of the street.
I'm all for it but my point is that revision of the regulation is more likely to hurt airlines than help them. Airlines would be stupid to call for it because of rare cases like this, when it opens the floodgate to claims that may be substantially lower per claim but far more common.
But it is not just the 3,300 euro. It is also the cost of running the case. Which far exceeds that.
Would it be cheaper to let it slide a d just pay without going to court? Maybe initially, but once paid, or in this case sadly lost by the airline, the lawyers will start hunting for the next case that can push it even further.
And to be honest, a lot of airlines...
But it is not just the 3,300 euro. It is also the cost of running the case. Which far exceeds that.
Would it be cheaper to let it slide a d just pay without going to court? Maybe initially, but once paid, or in this case sadly lost by the airline, the lawyers will start hunting for the next case that can push it even further.
And to be honest, a lot of airlines pay their due claims rather painlessly. With the routing here, It would be KLM, I have no experience with them as a 261 payer. But I have a feeling that the problems with paying clear cut cases sit on very specific limited number of airlines. It might be quite good for the industry to get airlines like Ryanair, Wizz, Easyjet put under a lot more pressure to pay their dues.
Airlines often try not to pay EC261 claims. I think there should be another rule where after a threshold Airlines should pay double if they keep rejecting legitimate claims that gets overturned in court. Such a waste of court time and harassing the consumers.
Enforceability is one thing that should be dealt with urgently if the regulation ever gets revised. First and foremost, there must be a deadline for compensation payout (Czech Airlines still pretends to be paying out my claim from 2020), and a penalty for late payouts. This would strongly discourage airlines from dodging claims. Give them 30 days to process the claim and then double the amount every 30 days they're late.
Good luck with "Czech" airlines. Perhaps now, after they have been bought by the Turkish group they may behave a bit better, but with Mr. Simane running the show, they were an absolute disgrace. They are a charter line with some regular routes, and the priority is ONLY charter contracts. Cancellations, tick! Schedule changes, tick! Equipment switch, tick! I used to fly them 50x per year in the old times, and now even with PRG...
Good luck with "Czech" airlines. Perhaps now, after they have been bought by the Turkish group they may behave a bit better, but with Mr. Simane running the show, they were an absolute disgrace. They are a charter line with some regular routes, and the priority is ONLY charter contracts. Cancellations, tick! Schedule changes, tick! Equipment switch, tick! I used to fly them 50x per year in the old times, and now even with PRG as my home airport, I avoid them like the plague. After years without using them, I booked a BRU-PRG a few weeks back and, alas, they changed the schedule. Not by much, but enough to reinforce my concerns.
CSA unfortunately dissolved shortly after the pandemic, Smartwings might own the brand but surely won't even pretend to take responsibility for old debts.
There have been other cases where German courts ruled that alcohol has to be reimbursed:
https://www.drboese.de/blog/lg-duesseldorf-airlines-muessen-auch-aufwendungen-fuer-alkohol-bei-verspaetungen-erstatten/
So I don't think it's correct (anymore) to say that alcohol doesn't have to be reimbursed under EU regulations.
Alcohol is not a problem for most courts. An exception applies when intoxication is the primary goal, such as with high-proof drinks or excessive consumption.
So many cancellations appears to be weather. Why not simply buy a new ticket to Madrid assuming it was possible. Taking a very expensive lengthy taxi ride is not mitigating losses. No sane person would spend €3000 and assume it would be refunded. It’s also likely this passenger had “friends” in the higher court.
That is what Af said as well. 100% they would not have paid a new flight to MAD, as MAD is not CDG.
Interesting, as the author points out, that car rental options weren't discussed as, IMHO, it's hard to imagine that, even with cross-border fees (applicable within the EU?) and one way drop off fees, a rental would come anywhere close to €3,300. However, it would make for a reasonable argument that the ticket contract obligates the carrier to actually provide transportation and specifically does not require the passenger to transport themselves.
They'd have to drive the car back, basically losing an employee for ca. 3 working days, and cover the cost of fuel as well as hotels and their travel back home. It'd genuinely cost them the best part of a couple of grand before admin costs and profit.
@Throwawayname - Article states that the ride took 9 hours, so I have no idea where you got the idea of 3 working days. It can be done in one day, legally.
That being said, I don't think that should dispute OP's claim. They may not have been fit to drive, or even have a driving licence in the first place.
France works on 7 hour days. Google maps says it's a 8h20 drive when observing speed limits and without taking any breaks.
You need 1 hour for lunch and probably 3*20 minute breaks. That's 10h20 before any traffic delays. You're already at 1.5 working day and you still have to do the paperwork with the foreign subsidiary, check in and fly back. And, because you've built a couple of hours' contingency for traffic delays,...
France works on 7 hour days. Google maps says it's a 8h20 drive when observing speed limits and without taking any breaks.
You need 1 hour for lunch and probably 3*20 minute breaks. That's 10h20 before any traffic delays. You're already at 1.5 working day and you still have to do the paperwork with the foreign subsidiary, check in and fly back. And, because you've built a couple of hours' contingency for traffic delays, you're already at the end of the second working day before you've even checked in.
7 hour working day may be standard but shift employees can and do work longer hours (comepsnated by more day offs). Professional drivers most definitely don't work for 7 hours per day only.
The point is this would have to fit into the shift pattern of the CDG office which would've been communicated to staff weeks in advance. It's not comparable to someone who knows they'll need to wake up the following morning and spend 11 hours pulling a container.
Maybe the traveler did not know how to drive. This is becoming very common in the the younger generation now. Especially if people live in big cities.
Lucky, this passenger may not have a driver license. It is not like the United States where everyone in the family needs his/her own car. Also, I think EU261 is very good only in writing. We have read so many articles from OMAAT about how airlines try to get out of paying compensation. That is why airlines want to change EU261 purely for their benefits and at the cost of the customers losing out even more.
Renting a car in one country and returning it in another is completely impossible with some companies and insanely expensive with the rest.
@Throwawayname - I just checked Sixt which is my go-to car rental company and they offer Munich to Paris one day rental for 900€. Way less than what the customer in question paid. But as pointed out above, it's irrelevant since the customer may not have been able to drive (lack of licence, tiredness, alcohol, whatever).
Flixbus has buses that leave Munich for Paris at 8 PM, 10:05 PM, 10:55 PM, and 11:35 PM every night. I highly doubt taxi was the only way to get to Paris.
The passengers tried to find a cheaper option but not not find it.
Furthermore: It's up to the airline to offer the rerouting at earliest possible way.
If the airline loses my luggage, I am concerned about buying a $20 t-shirt and getting reimbursed, and this guy is spending $3000 out of pocket. Insane.
Unter EC261 and when German courts are competent, no one has to fear airlines.
"Böse" is a German adjective meaning evil, wicked, malicious, bad, angry, or nasty.
They should probably add a new meaning for Böse: WINNER!
Did you see the pun on my website? :-D
just curious how much they received after Dr Bose's cut. Asking from a Morgan & Morgan state. Sure things are different in EU, but still...
fees were reimbursed also
Reimbursement of legal fees (in court) often means a fraction of the actual legal fees spent on a court case.
Not in Germany. Who loses, pays all the costs (with a very few exemptions)
The losing party would usually have to cover the fees. Many Germans also have travel insurance that would cover legal fees, at least up to a certain limit.
100%.
Germany is among the fairest countries in the world when it comes to costs. Who loses the case, has to cover the costs.
There has been discussion about changing EU261 and I suspect that cases like this will help to make that case. He spent 3300 euros to make a flight from Paris to Madrid that probably cost less than 200 euros and the court thought that was reasonable.
Actually there is no discussion about a change in the right to be rerouted after a cancellation.
Airlines would be (are?) stupid if they fought for reopening of 261/2004 over cases like this. Once it's reopened, it's almost impossible that the revision wouldn't also include a better enforceability, so airlines might avoid 3000€ claim once in a decade but end up having to pay thousands of small ones they doge under the current rules.
I find the final court decision to be valid. Airlines should not be able to treat passengers like dirt. At least in the EU passengers have options.
lol what a tool. Burning fossil fuels so he can be an extreme couponer. He didn’t “need” to go anywhere. Additionally, he never gave them an option to just fly him to Madrid because of his silly games. He couldn’t rent a car or just not go? Why didn’t KLM argue they had cheaper Madrid flights or even that Iberia did? Does EU261 guarantee routing?
And also, regarding the biggest tool, 1990, the Railway Labor Act is a much stronger consumer protection than EU261.
@ Sel, D. -- The flight to Madrid was a separate ticket. His contract with the airline was between Munich and Paris, and not between Munich and Madrid. Also, good luck getting a frontline agent to just book you to a completely different destination that you're not ticketed to travel to with that airline.
Thanks for the reply. Not for frontline to rebook him. For him to book himself. $4k so he can taxi and fly his preferred flight when his attorney’s argument was he “needed” to get to Madrid. Also, I suspect he already knew Böse - do you really think he would have risked the $4k otherwise? Maybe if this was the last flight of his promo conquest.
The more interesting thing here though is Railway vs....
Thanks for the reply. Not for frontline to rebook him. For him to book himself. $4k so he can taxi and fly his preferred flight when his attorney’s argument was he “needed” to get to Madrid. Also, I suspect he already knew Böse - do you really think he would have risked the $4k otherwise? Maybe if this was the last flight of his promo conquest.
The more interesting thing here though is Railway vs. EU261 re: consumer protections. No thoughts? I’d pick the former. I’m not a compensation clinic type.
@ Sel, D. -- I of course hear you, but then again, if we get to a system where airlines decide on a case-by-case basis who "needs" to be somewhere, well... that gets tricky too.
Also, I'd be willing to bet the airline would squarely reject the compensation request if you just booked a ticket to another destination and requested reimbursement. After all, they'll try to find any excuse to avoid paying out.
It's possible...
@ Sel, D. -- I of course hear you, but then again, if we get to a system where airlines decide on a case-by-case basis who "needs" to be somewhere, well... that gets tricky too.
Also, I'd be willing to bet the airline would squarely reject the compensation request if you just booked a ticket to another destination and requested reimbursement. After all, they'll try to find any excuse to avoid paying out.
It's possible he knew Böse, as he's kind of a known figure in the EC261 world. I agree it was quite a risk to pay that out of pocket and hope for reimbursement.
As far as EC261 vs. the Railway Labor Act goes, those are two different areas, as I see it. Broadly on the topic of unionization, I prefer a system between what we see in the US (where it's virtually impossible to go on strike) and what we see in Europe (where it's very easy to go on strike).
The other side of the coin here is interesting as well. Despite the fact that airline employees in the US can't really go on strike, they're among the highest paid in the world, and of course consumers are on the hook paying for that. So there's a certain irony to those not being able to go on strike being the highest paid.
"Also, good luck getting a frontline agent to just book you to a completely different destination that you're not ticketed to travel to with that airline." Last century, I had a business round trip Home-PHX on (not Delta). I added a PHX-LAS r/t on Delta. On the day I was to fly LAS-PHX-Home, the flight to PHX was cancelled. DL took the two flight coupons and issued me one for their n/s home. Best flight cancellation ever. But, I'd not expect this to happen today.
@Lucky thanks for the insights. Interesting case study here.
@Sel, when was the last time you did an one-way cross-border car rental?
There may have been a better solution, such as nipping across the border to Switzerland, buying a ticket on Air Europa straight out of MUC (not sure about the schedule at the time but they currently do have UX1518 at 19:00/19:05 most evenings, continuing after the end of the summer schedule), but, even if he does have a driving license, getting a...
@Sel, when was the last time you did an one-way cross-border car rental?
There may have been a better solution, such as nipping across the border to Switzerland, buying a ticket on Air Europa straight out of MUC (not sure about the schedule at the time but they currently do have UX1518 at 19:00/19:05 most evenings, continuing after the end of the summer schedule), but, even if he does have a driving license, getting a rental car would've been rather difficult and expensive- deep into the four figures and probably not much cheaper than what he ended up paying.
Would you rent a car for and drive on a trip lasting the entire night, if you did not plan for it and did not sleep the whole day? Definitely not an option unless you want to crash and perhaps die or kill someone else.
Friends in the US, do you see this? THIS is why we need better consumer protections in the US. EU261 is a great start. Bring back Rule 240. We’re leaving money on the table.
Who do you think will pay the $3900? The AFKLM CEO out of her pocket? Customers pay all these reimbursements in the ticket prices, there's no such thing as a free lunch y'all know.
You could claim that redistributing this cost to everyone as a hidden insurance premium for supporting those who need it is acceptable and I won't debate it, but there's no such thing as leaving money on the table because free money doesn't fall from the clouds.
Prices are hardly determined based on costs in aviation, but rather by market conditions. Therefore, I see fewer issues here. It could also simply lead to airlines fulfilling contracts and avoiding cancellations because those would become too expensive.
Thank you, DrBoese. I’m a huge fan of EU261, UK261, Canada’s APPR, and all pro-consumer regulations within aviation, and hope that someday soon the US will legislate something similar for our passengers. It is love overdue.